Video settings

Labor calls for inquiry into Fox land title

The shadow planning minister wants an inquiry into the government's apparent retreat in stopping trucking magnate Lindsay Fox from keeping the 45 metres of beach he claimed as part of his Portsea property.

Mr Guy told State Parliament on Wednesday he would consider legislation to clarify the high-water mark along Victoria's coast after Mr Fox won approval to extend his Portsea properties by 45 metres onto the beach.

''If it needs legislation to clarify it we will consider it, if it needs to be clarified by other methods we will have a look at it.''

An adamant Mr Guy told The Age on Sunday that the government was set to rush through retrospective legislation to clarify the high-water mark and reverse the Titles Office's controversial decision to grant Mr Fox an additional 2400 square metres of beach for his family's cliff-top Portsea compound.

Advertisement

On Sunday he said: ''The government needs to intervene and clarify those titles. The changes might say the high-water mark at the time of purchase or at a particular time … We are not going to subject the people of Victoria to a loss of beach access simply because of a 1900s definition.''

But Mr Guy appears to have softened his hardline stance on reining in Mr Fox's beach boundary.

Lindsay Fox at Portsea. Photo: Justin McManus

When asked by opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee to confirm whether he would be able to retrospectively reclaim the land given to Mr Fox, Mr Guy said he was seeking legal advice to clarify what could be done.

Mr Guy said he wanted to provide clarity for Victorians. He told Parliament his office had not been advised that a decision on Mr Fox's boundaries was being considered or about to be made by the Titles Office.

''My office and the department are kept up to date by the Titles Office of issues that they have coming to them. However, being advised of any specific land title decision is not something that I have been involved in in the past nor any other minister has been involved in.''

Mr Tee called for a review into the saga and said Mr Guy was ''backtracking from his commitment at a million miles per hour''.

''There needs to be a review into how this appalling decision was made, why the minister said he was never informed, and what steps should be taken to ensure this never happens again. It's a disgrace that sets an awful precedent.''

A Liberal source said they believed the Titles Office decision was made on Christmas Eve to avoid scrutiny.

With Royce Millar

henrietta.cook@fairfaxmedia.com.au

35 comments so far

The reporting on this issue is very misleading.The Titles Office did not "grant Mr Fox an additional 2400 square metres of beach for his family's cliff-top Portsea compound".

All the Land Titles Office did was amend its records to accord with reality, that the land above the high water mark belongs to Mr Fox.

Anyone who has studied property law will know that land title records often do not accord with an owners right to possession of their land. An application can be made to amend a title to properly identify ownership of land that has been acquired by adverse possession, accretion or even purchase.

If the land erodes 60m in the future, will the government let Lindsay retain title and exclusive possession to a portion of Port Phillip Bay? I think not. It can not have it both ways. The proposed legislation will effectively be a compulsory acquisition of land and if that happens Lindsay can put his hand out for a few million.

Commenter

Spencer

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

February 20, 2014, 4:01AM

Spencer, whilst you may be correct in your understanding of how Mr Fox's claim was assessed. We all know, that morally this is on the nose - the very very large majority of us couldn't even contemplate purchasing even a modest sized beach/bayside property.Nor would we be able to pay for the legal team to state the case, within this obviously outdated legislation - it was obviously legislated by the mob who were 'Born to rule'.

You suggest that Lindsay, could put his hand out for a few Mil in compensation, in your hypothetical hmmm. Climate change is a serious matter, then to avoid this situation arising, perhaps we need to withdraw the Fuel Tax Credit for Heavy Diesel Vehicles, further we could get Bdouble trucks & proposed Btriple trucks off the 'our' roads and back on to rail.If that was to happen, imagine, how much time Mr Fox could save on a drive down to Portsea, he wouldn't even need a helicopter would he?

Commenter

Beachless

Date and time

February 20, 2014, 5:16AM

It is not legislation that defines his title, it is common law. The Crown created the title with the high water mark definition. For more than a decade now Lindsay has claimed the land is his and has exercised possession over it. If the land was not his the government would have kicked him out years ago. Too many people are letting their emotion and indignation distort and distract from the facts.

Commenter

Spencer

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

February 20, 2014, 5:50AM

@ Beachless.It is very good that you pointed out that this is a MORAL issue and also,not the possibility, but the certainty that climate change is going to raise the sea level and make a mockery of the way current decisions are made.Your solution is extremely sensible with brilliant outcomes, including reduction of the obscene wealth of at least one of those who have much more than is reasonable -- or fair to the rest of the community.

Commenter

EM

Date and time

February 20, 2014, 6:57AM

em - 'obscene wealth'? How judgmental are you? What is wrong with a person building up a company from scratch which has given employment to thousands of people? What is wrong with a person creating a business which has paid millions of dollars in tax? Why shouldn't this person be allowed to benefit financially from all their hard work?

Perhaps you can enlighten us all by telling us how many people you have provided jobs for?

Commenter

Simon

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

February 20, 2014, 8:09AM

Once again Spencer, you are probably right.I can't think of a more pertinent use of the proverbial expression 'then the law is an ass'.

Commenter

Beachless

Date and time

February 20, 2014, 8:26AM

This must not be.

Commenter

Thomas

Date and time

February 20, 2014, 4:04AM

Hmmm smells like a call might have been may and told to back off.

Commenter

Rod

Date and time

February 20, 2014, 4:22AM

The reality is that the extra bit of beach is needed to accommodate Fox's man-boobs.